Matt asks—

What’s the deal with bridges?
Why are some bridges run by MOT (Ministry of Transportation), others by Translink, and still others by municipalities? For example, why is Pattullo a Translink bridge and not an MOT bridge. You get the idea… Thanks!

This is an easy one.

Someone asked—

Is it possible to ask city to put back baby change table in family washroom at pier park in downtown area? There is no change table in the park right now.

This is probably one of those questions that should go straight to the Parks Department, or even on SeeClickFix. But I asked a few questions, and here is the best I can tell (again, contact the Parks directly to get what is probably more accurate info!

The Men’s and Women’s Washrooms at Pier Park do not lock (except at night) but the Family room does, as that better reflects it’s one-at-a-time use. Apparently, this ability to lock the door empowers some undesirable activities, possibly (but not certainly) related. First, it seems that some people with limited other options have used the room to grab a few hours of secured sleep in the early morning or evening hours. There has also been quite a bit of vandalism in that room – much more than in the unlocked “gender-specific” bathrooms.

Brad asks—

There are a number of townhouses and condo units in New Westminster that are age-restricted to 19+ only. This age discrimination is legal under BC’s Human Rights Code (and purchasing property is the only area laid out in the Human Rights Code in which it’s legal to discriminate against age).

Is there anything that a municipality in BC can do to extend the Human Rights Code to make age discrimination when purchasing property illegal?

If so, might New Westminster consider doing this to improve the housing stock available to families with children under 19?

I remember back when @MsNWimby and I were looking to upgrade from our condo on Royal Ave several years back. We weren’t really hunting hard, as we really liked our Condo and the building, but with my continued obsession with bicycles and inkling of wanting to start a garden (this is before the New Westminster Community Garden Society got launched), living on the 20^th floor was starting to get stale. So we started softly looking around.

Our shopping was 95% New Westminster, and we weren’t fussed about house or townhome, as long as we had a place for bikes and a bit of soil to put plants into. Walkability to SkyTrain was a high priority, as was being away from noisy traffic. We looked at a few of the spacious townhouses in the Fraserview area. At more than one, the seller looked at us (a couple close enough to their prime reproductive years looking a multi-bedroom units) and pointed out that this was an “age restricted” complex. No-one under 19 admitted… we weren’t thinking of starting a family, were we?

I remember specifically one relatively affordable 2,400 square foot 3 bedroom 3 bath two-car-garage unit opening to the ravine park where you were allowed to have two cats and two dogs, but no people under the age of 19. I thought “bullshit”. How could that type of discrimination even be legal?

Apparently it is.

Section 123 of the Strata Property Act (a provincial legislation over which a City has no jurisdiction) makes it clear that Strata Councils can pass Bylaws that restrict the ages of people residing in a Strata Lot, as long as it does not violate the Human Rights Code.

Section 9 of the BC Human Rights Code says you cannot discriminate against a person attempting to purchase a property on account of their race, colour, religion, or sexual orientation, but does not restrict discrimination based on a age.

Section 10 of the same Act deals with tenancy, saying you cannot refuse to rent to someone for the same reasons, but adds age and “family status” to the list of discriminatory factors.

So you cannot use a persons youth or a family’s children as a reason to refuse renting an apartment, but you can use those reasons to refuse to allow them to live in an apartment they own. Government is stupid.

There is a provision in the Act for 55+ “seniors housing”, but the 19+ part is not really spelled out anywhere in the Act, except that “age” in the act is defined to mean an age of 19 years or more – if you are under 19, you are not protected from age discrimination by the Act.

Of course, the Human Rights Code is, ultimately, superseded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so I suppose some Constitutional Lawyer may be able to argue that the gaps in the Human Rights Code violate the Charter, but I have neither the black robe nor powdered wig to opine knowledgably about that.

One interesting point: the pressing need for family-sized housing is having an interesting effect on age-restricted condos. Prices for condos in age-restricted complexes are generally depressed (more than 10% in many cases), and CMHC are very reluctant to (or, according to some sources, completely refuse to) provide Mortgage Insurance to complexes with age restrictions.

Is there anything that a Municipality can do? Not directly. We could work through the LMLGA and UBCM to pass resolutions asking the provincial government to change the rules, but I am not sure there would be much political appetite in senior governments (or in local government, for that matter) to poke that hornet’s nest.

I would love to hear from people defending the 19+ restrictions – are they really a good thing for a neighbourhood, or for a community?

Anonymous123 asks—

Will the city be offering pay by phone for parking? I thought that one of the reasons for these fancy new metres was so that this service could be offered. I personally find it far more convenient. I see exactly the same metres at River Market and Plaza 88 and they both offer pay by phone, yet the city does not. What gives?

Short answer: Yes. The new digital pay stations being installed are compatible with Pay-by-Phone applications. The removal of the old meters and the installation of the new ones is an ongoing process, however, and there are a few steps that need to happen in the City’s internal processes before full pay-by-phone comes on line. I hope it happens by the end of the year, and that would be a safe bet, but I’m not making any promises.

John A asks—

When is the Café/Restaurant at the Anvil Coming? Is there an issue with the contract demanding Fair Living Wage? Using CUPE staff to overcome this issue like done at Pier Park concession, needs to be discussed.

This was sent as a comment on a recent Council Report, but I thought it worked better as an ASK PAT, and hey, it’s my party, so I can post how I want to.

There are some things I simply cannot talk about on this forum, because of Section 90 of the Community Charter. However, I am confident that we will soon have a tenant operating a restaurant in the Anvil.

The Living Wage Policy is not an issue. You can read the policy here, and see that it only applies to organizations providing services “to the City on City Premises.” As is a practice I try to use here, the “City” with a capital “C” strictly means the corporate entity, not the general populace (“community”) or geographic locality (“city”). Companies that lease property from the City to operate a not-for-profit or for-profit business venture in the city that offers goods or services to the community are exempt from the policy.

Matt C asks—

My bike commute has got me thinking lately…thinking about bike lane design on bridges. I’ve had some close calls on the Queensborough Bridge with cigarette-wielding, headphone wearing pedestrians travelling in the same direction, totally oblivious to their surroundings. I also had an accident on the same bridge while passing a fellow cyclist who urged me to go around him. And I’ve never understood the unwritten rules of passing etiquette on the Pattullo Bridge (“I’ll stop if going up” or is it “I’ll stop if on the inside”, or maybe it’s just a game of chicken).

So, what is the best design of cyclist/pedestrian shared pathways on bridges? Is bigger better? Is there a secret formula for success?

New West will soon have two new shared bridge pathways: the new Pattullo and the drawbridge from the Quay to Queensborough. I am curious if these will be built to ensure a pleasurable experience for all.

I feel qualified to answer this, because the Queensborough is on my regular commute, and indeed, a little sidewalk etiquette would be in order. The only real conflict I have ever had was with a defensive dude on one of those electric fake-mopeds which I ranted about previously. However, I am commonly bothered by two things: inattentive pedestrians with earphones that are impossible to pass, no matter how much you ring a bell, slow down, say “ahem” or “excuse me”; and downhill-travelling cyclists who have a distorted trust in our combined ability to prevent collision as they blow by me at high speed.

I would generally suggest we need a bit of common courtesy here, and two sets of rules seem to make sense to me. Those established in the early years of mountain biking by advocacy groups like IMBA, where cyclists *always* yield to pedestrians:

A second suggestion would be the old skiing standard that lower traffic always has right-of way. Meaning if you are going downhill and approaching someone else also going downhill, you slow down and only pass if they wave you through. If you are going downhill and someone is coming uphill, the person going down always yields (makes sense as it takes more energy to stop and start while climbing than it does while downhilling).

That would deal with 80% of conflict, common courtesy with another 15%, and the last 5% are jerks you just gotta put out of your mind – there’s no helping them. At least you only have to deal with them 5% of the time. Imagine how hard it must be for them being jerks 100% of the time!

In my experience, the best bike-path-on-a-bridge is on the Canada Line Bridge, and yeah, the secret is width. There is enough room that people can get out of each other’s way, without having to squeeze over next to an irregular fence that is as likely to catch your handlebars than stop you from falling into traffic. Even there, common courtesy is needed, but I have never had anything close to an uncomfortable experience on that bridge. Given adequate room, people just seem to stay right and chill:

The new Q2Q bridge is initially being designed to accommodate a police vehicle or ambulance in the event of emergency, so I am pretty sure it will be wide enough to be comfortable (like the Canada Line Bridge). Initial design of the eventual Pattullo Replacement hasn’t even started, to my knowledge, but considering the Canada Line Bridge is the last piece of water-crossing cyclist and pedestrian infrastructure that TransLink has designed and built, I hope for as high a standard.

Until then, just be careful and courteous, and recognize that although the Queensborough crossing is not “state-of-the-art” or quite wide enough to be perfect, it is a pretty well designed pathway as far as access at each end. Maybe we just need to think about some basic courtesy signs at each entrance establishing yield rules/suggestions. I’d love to see a design that might work that we could take to the Ministry of Transportation for approval…

Someone asked—

Hey Pat, read your save the parkade post. Agree with all your points, but my main concern is the possible increase in noise since we will be removing a barrier to it. Is the city doing anything to mitigate this possible impact as a result of demolishing the west half of the parkade?

thanks!

Hi Someone (if that’s your real name!) Sorry to be so late answering. Busy times.

I have heard several opinions about the effect of the Parkade removal as far as noise goes, but there are several stories to be told in regards to the noise. When it comes to trucks, most of the noise is generated low down in the engine and (in the case of container trucks) the undercarriage. For trains, you have shunting noises and the whistles (and general wheel squeak). Each need to be addressed differently.

The City is currently looking at how the Front Street Mews will be developed, and there is every possibility that a low-level noise barrier that addresses most truck noise will be part of that plan. Improving the pavement and aligning the road better will also help this. The train noise is currently aside the Parkade, not below it, although the Parkade probably acts as a bit of a barrier to a few residential buildings in the Downtown. The City’s Whistle Cessation Strategy will hopefully see the end to whistles along that stretch of the rail tracks in the next year or two – but that requires that the crossings are made safer, which removal of the Parkade will assist with. There is no doubt that the noise level at ground level of Front Street can me significantly improved for very little investment, once the Parkade is gone.

Both of these, however, need to be put into context of the longer-term vision for the City’ waterfront. Ultimately, Front Street will not be a regional truck route, but will be a local road serving the needs of New Westminster. There has also been some discussion about the long-term fate of the rails (of which I have a pretty strong opinion).

We are not there yet, but long-term visions need a starting step, and investing in another 20 years of the west half of the Parkade is a step in the wrong direction – good money after bad.

Someone asked—

Thanks for answering my question about the Brewery District so quickly, by the way. So, here’s one more: What’s with the derelict CPR station building that used to be the Keg on Columbia Street? I know there are serious structural issues with the building, but it seems crazy that such a beautiful building in such a prominent location amongst so much heritage revitalization remains seemingly untouched for years now…

And by the way, it REALLY should become a nice pub.

Sorry to make you wait this time… life is busy! The CPR Station building doesn’t belong to the City, so I don’t know much more than you. My understanding (from news stories when the Keg left) was that there were some problems with the building. However, since then I have noticed a new roof, and a bunch of pointing and re-grouting of the brickwork and masonry, so I don’t know if the term “derelict” really fits, but I hate to see it sit unused, as that is often the short route to dereliction.

The Keg (or the owner?) went to a bit of trouble to scrape every vestige of their name off of the building, so we have to presume they are not coming back. Yes, it would make a pretty epic tap-house, and it would also be great to have a large open terraces seating area out front that wasn’t fenced off from the public. Let’s hope the owners find a great lessee soon.

I’m also pretty interested in the rock used for stone quoining and window surrounds – upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group sandstones, likely from Gabriola or Saturna Island. But I’m a bit of a nerd that way.

Mona Boucher asks—

Hi Pat. Another development question for you, this one with regards to The Urban Academy expansion proposal. What if the proposal is rejected and UA decided to sells the 2 properties they own? What is that site currently zoned for and is the heritage mansion currently protected? I fear that the mansion could be legally razed and the entire site replaced with a 20 plus storey condo building. Just want to know what could happen without a rezoning or heritage revitalization agreement. Thanks.

You know, Mona, I think I am going to avoid answering this one for now. Those might be good questions to ask planning staff or even the proponents if you are interested in the Urban Academy project, but I want to avoid speculation on outcomes on that project. This project will be going before a public hearing, I don’t yet have access to the Staff Reports that will inform that public hearing, and I don’t want to prejudice that process at all.